The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities

The paper situates inclusive education as a global movement promoted by international organizations concerned with the rights and education of people with disabilities. It traces key milestones, including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirming education as a right for all, and UNESCO’s 1994 Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action signed by 92 countries and 25 organizations, which catalyzed global attention to inclusion. Subsequent efforts included UNESCO’s 2000 Education for All initiative, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNESCO’s 2009 guidance for inclusive legislation, and the World Education Forum’s goals emphasizing rights, equity, inclusion, quality, and lifelong learning. In Saudi Arabia, despite signing the Salamanca Statement, inclusive education remains uncertain theoretically and practically, with regulations favoring special education and occasional mislabeling of exclusionary practices as inclusive. The study addresses ongoing global ambiguity about the meaning of inclusive education, which hinders consistent policy and practice, and is guided by the research question: What does inclusive education mean among Saudi university academics specialising in special education? The study adopts Roger Slee’s inclusive education theory as a conceptual lens and underscores the need for a clear, operational definition to ground practice.

The paper reviews extensive debates showing no single, universally agreed definition of inclusive education. Reasons include differing research traditions, terminological overlap (e.g., inclusion vs. integration, mainstreaming, placement), and variation across countries and systems. Definitions highlighted include: the Salamanca (1994) view of inclusion as a process responding to all students’ diverse needs through changes in content, curriculum, structure, and strategy; the 2009 International Conference on Education definition emphasizing transforming regular schools and early-years settings to remove barriers across environments, curricula, teaching, socialization, and assessment; Loreman and Deppeler’s framing of inclusion as a right for all students with disabilities to learn alongside non-disabled peers with acceptance of diversity; and Ainscow et al.’s view of reducing barriers to learning and participation and increasing schools’ capacity to accommodate all students. Loreman (2009) delineates core characteristics distinguishing inclusive education in practice, such as access to the nearest school, zero-rejection admissions, learning in age-appropriate heterogeneous classrooms, substantially similar programs with adaptable curricula and varied teaching, full participation and celebration of diversity, social relationships and success, and adequate resources and training for stakeholders. The study employs these characteristics, alongside flexible curricula and differentiated assessment, as criteria for analyzing participants’ conceptions. The review also distinguishes inclusion from related concepts: integration often centers on placing students based on their abilities (frequently via Least Restrictive Environment) with limited restructuring of school environments, while inclusion emphasizes systemic school transformation to welcome, value, and support all learners.

A qualitative approach was used to gain an in-depth understanding of academics’ conceptions of inclusive education. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews, chosen for their capacity to elicit rich, nuanced accounts beyond researcher preconceptions and to capture diverse perspectives. Interviews were conducted remotely using Google Meet at times chosen by participants, audio-recorded with consent, and supplemented by researcher notes. Each lasted 45–60 minutes. Core questions addressed: (1) how participants define inclusive education; (2) examples of inclusive education practices; (3) differences between inclusive education and special education; and (4) perceptions of inclusive practices in Saudi Arabia with examples. Purposive sampling targeted faculty members who met inclusion criteria: holding a doctorate, specializing in the education of people with disabilities, and serving in a special education department at a Saudi governmental university. Twelve faculty members from seven universities participated, representing specialties such as behavioral disorders, gifted education, communication disorders, intellectual disability, learning difficulties, deaf education, autism spectrum, and visual disability, with varied years of experience and genders. Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase Thematic Analysis using a deductive, top-down approach informed by Slee’s inclusive education theory and Loreman’s (2009) definition and the study’s criteria (flexible curriculum and differentiated assessment). The researcher repeatedly read transcripts, coded explicit and implicit meanings of inclusive education, and organized codes into three experiential themes: identical or close definition, ambiguity of definition, and relationship conception. For validation, the themes were shared with three academics and seven participants; feedback led to refining the first theme to “identical or close definition.”

- No participant provided a definition fully identical to the study’s adopted definition; only 2 of 12 (FM8, FM10) offered definitions reasonably close, mentioning placement in neighborhood schools with age peers and provision of needed services, but omitting elements such as flexible curricula, full participation, valuing diversity, and differentiated assessment. - Ambiguity and confusion were prevalent: 10 of 12 participants (83%) showed ambiguity in defining inclusive education. Several equated inclusion with Least Restrictive Environment. Six participants (FM2, FM4, FM5, FM9, FM11, FM12) conflated inclusion with integration/mainstreaming/placement, emphasizing conditional placement based on student abilities. - Relationship conception: 11 of 12 participants perceived a relationship between inclusive education and special education. Seven viewed inclusion as part of special education; four viewed special education as part of inclusion; only one (FM8) regarded them as conceptually and practically contradictory. These results indicate widespread conceptual ambiguity and overlap with integration/placement notions and a prevailing belief in a close linkage between inclusion and special education.

Findings directly address the research question by revealing substantial ambiguity among Saudi special education academics regarding the meaning of inclusive education. The scarcity of definitions aligned with the study’s criteria and the frequent linkage to LRE suggest that many participants construe inclusion as accommodation or placement rather than a whole-school transformation emphasizing barrier removal, flexible curricula, full participation, and differentiated assessment. The common conflation of inclusion with integration reflects global terminological overlap documented in the literature and underscores important distinctions: integration typically focuses on student fit and placement with minimal systemic change, whereas inclusion requires restructuring school environments, curricula, and pedagogy to welcome and value all learners. Regarding the relationship between inclusive and special education, most participants perceived them as interrelated (either inclusion within special education or vice versa), while only one articulated the theoretical stance adopted in this study that positions inclusive education and special education as conceptually and practically opposed. The discussion situates this in broader theoretical frames: special education often aligns with a medical model emphasizing diagnosis, classification, and placement across segregated or partially integrated settings, whereas inclusive education aligns with a social model emphasizing barrier removal, anti-segregation, and learning in general classrooms in neighborhood schools with full participation. Collectively, the findings highlight the absence of a unified, operational definition in the Saudi context and the need for shared understanding to guide policy, practice, and evaluation of inclusion.

The study concludes that: (1) there is no approved, unified definition of inclusive education in the Saudi context; (2) conceptual ambiguity is widespread, with frequent conflation of inclusion with integration, mainstreaming, and placement; and (3) many academics view inclusive and special education as interrelated, contrary to the theoretical position that they are conceptually and practically opposed. Recommendations include: 1) Authorities should adopt a comprehensive, unified operational definition of inclusive education and align implementation and evaluation with it; 2) Promote accurate concepts of inclusion among academics and stakeholders through seminars, conferences, and scientific/social events; 3) Support research into the causes and consequences of conceptual and applied shortcomings regarding inclusive education among Saudi university faculty; 4) Enact and implement laws and regulations grounded in a correct concept of inclusive education; 5) Evaluate current practices against the adopted definition of inclusive education.

The study focuses solely on the Saudi context, which may limit generalizability beyond this setting. It relies on a purposive sample of 12 faculty members from seven universities and on self-reported perspectives obtained via semi-structured interviews. Additionally, due to confidentiality, the Arabic interview transcripts cannot be shared publicly, limiting external verification of the analysis.